I saw a discussion about this on another site. Wanted to bring it here. I am curious what you guys think of them. The argument for getting rid of them is that online gaming tends to be unevenly matched and unfair in certain areas so it puts players at a disadvantage for 100%'ing a game.
In what regard? I think general playing ones are fine. Like play in so many rounds of whatever but ranking and special unlocked, that can be a toss-up and heavily depends on the game.
What about online-only games that have no story/campaign? I think it depends on the game like Nightkil said. In most cases, I don’t think they need to be removed but I can see why some may be unfair. I am not an achievement/trophy hunter though so I don’t care either way.
I don’t think they do. If you struggle to unlock something, it is not the end of the world. I mean these are great to unlock but they are effectively meaningless. They are meant to make games feel more rewarding when in reality, we are all just wasting time lol
I never really paid much attention to have an opinion on this. What are some examples of ones you think should be removed or others have mentioned that should be removed?
To clarify, I mean the ones that require you to do something competitive, not just the participation awards.
Then no, it’s like asking for your boss to give you a raise when you’re underperforming. Except it actually has tangible value that game achievements don’t.
So you think they should stay in the game? Like ones that rely on the game performing well enough? The ones I am talking about tend to be ones players can be screwed out of having because of hacks, bad mechanics, lag, and other issues.